Re: is this double CBC?




"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:e37zIOWhH12IFwbt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So this closed-minded rejection by the establishment is why it wasn't
selected for AES but sank into total obscurity?

as i said, it was chosen because it was cryptographically sound, doesn't
mean that people like the algorithm.

I'm not _entirely_ sure that follows logically from the evidence you have
presented.

the point is, just because people dont like an idea, it doesnt necessarily
mean it is without merit, alternately, just because someone likes an idea
doesn't mean it has any merit at all. the point is, everyone here dismisses
an idea without even exploring any of the details, because the person who
has the idea, might be like me and not be able to explain things properly
but has code snippets that no one cares about. but ya know what, i give up.
no one who is not a cryptographer can have a remotely useable idea about
anything to do with cryptography or anything related. at least that's the
belief around here.

the entire point of me posting here, and the only reason why i bother, is
because i am and have been trying to have an open forum where myself, or you
Mr Herring, can have an idea, and those with greater knowledge can help
develop that idea into something useful. talk about an impossible task.


.